Bangalore District Court
Smt. Anuradha vs Sri. Mahadeva N on 24 June, 2016
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
AT BENGALURU. (SCCH.18)
Present: Sri.Veeranna Somasekhara,
B.Com., L.L.B,
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
and Member, MACT,
Bangalore.
Dated: This 24th day of June 2016
S.C.No.461/2016
PLAINTIFF:
Smt. Anuradha,
W/o Sri. Suresh Babu,
Residing at No.1,
Behind Annapoorneshwari Stores,
Channasandra, Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 098.
(By Pleader Sri.NK)
-Vs-
2 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18
DEFENDANT:
Sri. Mahadeva N.
Shop No.2, First Floor,
No.878, 34/10, BEML main road,
Dwaraka Nagara, Channasandra,
Rajarajeshwari Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 098.
(Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 22.03.2016
Nature of the suit (suit on
Pronote, suit for Declaration
and possession Suit for
Injunction, etc.) Ejectment
Date of the commencement of
Recording of the evidence: 04.06.2016
Date on which the Judgment was
Pronounced: 24-06-2016
Total duration: Year/s Months Day/s
0 3 02
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA)
III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSE
BANGALORE.
3 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for the relief of ejectment and mesne profit.
2. The case of the plaintiff is as under:
The suit schedule property is a piece and parcel of shop premises bearing No.2 of No.878, 34/10, BEML main road, Dwaraka Nagara, Channasandra, Bangalore, which is bounded as under:
To the East : Road To the West : private property To the North : Property No.879 To the South : Shop No.1 and property No.877.
3. The contention of the plaintiff is that, she has purchased the property bearing no.878 in survey no.34/30 of Channasandra village for a valuable consideration from one P. Mallu S/o Puttamallegowda under registered sale deed. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that, after purchase 4 Sc.No.461/2016 SCCH-18 the said property, her name was entered as owner in the concerned Revenue Records. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that, in the month of May-2013, the defendant has approached her and requested to give the schedule shop under rent and he has agreed to pay the rent of Rs.5,000/- p.m. Further as per the request of the defendant, the plaintiff has agreed to give the suit shop to the defendant for rent and as such, on 10.09.2013, the defendant has executed the rental agreement in respect of the suit schedule shop. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendant is running the real estate business in the suit shop. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that, during the tenancy period, the defendant was irregular in paying the rent and as such, she has requested the defendant to pay the arrears of rent as agreed by him. Inspite of that, the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent as agreed by him. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that, 5 Sc.No.461/2016 SCCH-18 during the month of February-2015, the defendant has sub-let the suit shop to one Astrologer without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Further the contention of the plaintiff is that, since February-2015, the defendant was irregular in paying the rent and the tenancy period of the defendant over the suit schedule shop was expired on 09.08.2015. Thereafter, the plaintiff has approached the defendant and requested him to vacate and handover the vacant portion of the suit shop, inspite of that, the defendant has not vacated and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff has issued the termination notice to the defendant through her counsel calling upon him to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop. Inspite of service of notice, the defendant has not complied the demand of the plaintiff and as such, after receipt of notice, the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule shop is illegal one. 6 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18
4. BY alleging the above said cause of action, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for the above said relief.
5. After registration of suit, the suit summons were issued to the defendant through court and RPAD and the said summons were returned as addressee not claimed and as such, it is ordered that, the summons issued by this court deems to be served. In spite of service of summons, the defendant has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, he was placed exparte.
6. On perusal of contents of plaint, the following short points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the defendant as contended in para no.4 of plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff proved that she has legally terminated the tenancy of the defendant over the suit schedule shop?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit as prayed for?7 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
5. What order or decree?
7. In order to prove the case, the Plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 11.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the documents.
9. My findings to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 & 2 : In the affirmative Point No.3 : It requires enquiry Point No.4 : In the Partly affirmative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
10. POINT NO.1 & 2: These points are inter-connected with each other. Hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, these points are taken together for common consideration.
11. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed the written arguments by reiterating the 8 Sc.No.461/2016 SCCH-18 contents of plaint and also the evidence put forth by the PW-1. Further he contended that, the Plaintiff has proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the defendant in respect of suit schedule shop by producing oral and documentary evidence. Further he contended that, the Plaintiff has properly terminated the tenancy of the defendant over the suit schedule shop. Further he contended that, inspite of service of summons, the defendant has not appeared before the court and not produced any rebuttal documents to disbelieve the version of plaintiff. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has proved her case as contended in the plaint. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit.
12. On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove the case, the Plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and she has stated in her evidence by reiterating the contents of plaint. In 9 Sc.No.461/2016 SCCH-18 support of her evidence, the Plaintiff has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 11.
13. Further to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and defendant in respect of the suit schedule shop, the plaintiff has relied upon the copy of rental agreements (unmarked) and reply notice issued by the defendant. On perusal of copy of 2 rental agreements, it shows that, on 10-09-2013 and 10-09-2014, the said rental agreements came in to existence in between the Plaintiff and the defendant in respect of suit schedule shop for a period of 11 months each.
14. Further on perusal of Ex-P-11 i.e. copy of reply notice, it reveals that, before filing the suit, the Plaintiff has issued the termination notice to the defendant and after receipt of said notice, the defendant has issued the said reply notice to the Plaintiff counsel, wherein at Para No.3 & 4 of the notice, he has clearly admitted as under:
10 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18 "3. It is true that my client is the tenant under your client in respect of the shop premises in the property bearing NO.878, Shop No.2, 34/10, 1st Floor, BEML Main Road, Dwarakanagara, Channasandra, Rajarajeshwari Nagara, Bangalore City-560 098, measuring 10 X 15 Sq. ft.,. Your client and her husband attempting to interfere with my client's possession.
4. It is true that my client and your client have entered in to rental agreements dated 10-09-2013 and 10-09-2014. The tenancy is still subsisting and continuing. My client is in possession and paying rents regularly to your client and his hard earned money has been paid as advance amount to your client."
Looking to the contents of reply notice and also on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the Plaintiff has proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the defendant by producing oral and documentary evidence. 11 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18
15. Further on perusal of Ex.P.9 & 10 i.e. copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgment card, it reveals that, before filing the suit, the Plaintiff has issued the termination notice to the defendant through her counsel calling upon the him to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop and the said notice is properly served to the defendant. Further as stated above that, after receipt of notice, the defendant has issued the reply notice as per Ex.P.11.
16. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the Plaintiff has legally terminated the tenancy of the defendant over the suit schedule shop as per provision of Section 106 of TP Act. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the Plaintiff has proved these points by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I, answer these points are in the affirmative.
12 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18
17. POINT NO.3: The specific contention of the plaintiff is that, after receipt of termination notice, the defendant has not vacated the suit schedule shop and as such, he is liable to pay mesne profit to her from the date of suit till handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop. Further on perusal of the contents of Plaint and evidence of Pw-1, it appears that, the Plaintiff has not mentioned the rate of mesne profit and also she has not produced any supportive documents regarding the rate of mesne profit. On the other hand, on perusal of contents of plaint and on perusal of evidence of PW-1, it appears that, after receipt of termination notice, the defendant has not vacated and handed over the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop to the Plaintiff. Hence, the defendant is liable to pay mense profit to the plaintiff. However, to assess the rate of mense profit it requires enquiry. Hence, I answer the Point No.3 is accordingly. 13 Sc.No.461/2016
SCCH-18
18. POINT NO.4: As far as this point is concerned, as already stated above that, the plaintiff has proved the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the defendant and also proved the proper termination of the defendant over the suit schedule shop and as such, she is entitle for the relief as sought for. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.4 is in partly affirmative.
19. POINT NO.5: In view of my findings on point No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following order:
O R D E R The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of this order.
The defendant is liable to pay the mesne profit to the plaintiff from the date of suit till the date of 14 Sc.No.461/2016 SCCH-18 handing over the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop and it requires enquiry as per Order XX Rule XII of CPC.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 24th day of June, 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of Shop Premises bearing No.2, First Floor, constructed on site No.878, 34/10, BEML Main Road, Swaraka Nagara, Channsandra, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore-560 098. measuring East to West: 15.0 feet, North to South: 10.0 feet, totally measuring 150 Square Feet, bounded on:-
East by : Road, West by : Private Property, 15 Sc.No.461/2016 SCCH-18 North by: Property No.879. South by: Shop No.1 & thereafter Property No.877.
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: PW.1 : Smt.Anuradha List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex-P1 Copy of sale deed dated 21-11-2011 Ex-P2 Form 'B' Property register issued by Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Rajeshwari Nagara Zone Ex-P3 Copy of Encumbrance certificate Ex-P4 Form No.16 Ex-P5 Tax paid acknowledgment with receipt Ex-P6 Copy of Bank statement of State Bank of India Ex-P7 Copy of Bank statement of Andhra Bank Ex-P8 Copy of Bank statement of Sree Thyagaraja Co-op Bank Ltd Ex-P9 Copy of legal notice Ex-P10 Postal acknowledgment Ex-P11 Reply notice List of Witnesses examined for defendant :
-Nil-
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.